Why were the French so bad a colonising?

Why were the French so bad a colonising?

British:
>Lasting colonies that were extension of thier countries
>Settled by thier peoples
>America, Canada, Australia still exists

Spain:
>Colonised all of Southern America
>Not successful at settling, but successfully enseminated natives

FRANCE:
...

>not successful at settling

there was this little nigger named nappy that colonised the whole of europe that one time

i believe germany once did something similar 100 odd years later, twice

Something something argintina is white something something

That's actually a fair point, the conquest of Napoleon has brought French influences over Europe which you can still see today. Think about trias politica, or the abundance of French loanwords in continental languages.

The Brits went after areas that were sparsely populated, and displaced the few natives there.

Compare that to Spain (which conquered outright empires that were heavily populated and had rich, stable cultures) and France (who went after Muslims and berbers, classic fucking mistake).

British colonies founded in places that had actual people living these failed miserably in the long run. India is literally POO and kept afloat due to sheer market size, and South Africa is probably what hell looks like.

French colonies that followed the British model did okay. Look at Quebec. They've been under Anglo yoke for nearly 200 years but their culture is more or less intact. Admirable, to be sure.

Russia followed the same model, which is why it's Siberian colonies are outright still part of Russia.

The Spanish aren't white to begin with

north and west africa seems like a handmedowns sinceonce iberia was done with it and moved on to nw

>India
>sparsely populated

thats just not true the british empire forged her horns on the cleansing and purifying of the australian continent and an equatable size of that again from the south of africa, displacing and genociding millions, nigh on hundreds of with an atlantic-indian-pacific fleet to boot

purging

France never genocided the locals to replace them with white
Britain did that in four colonies (USA, Canada, Australia, NZ) who happen to be its only successul colonies out of hundreds.

France did what Britain did with its other colonies, but in all of them
Therefore, all the French colonies are in the same state as the British colonies that arent the ones mentioned above (Sudan, Bengladesh, Burma, Guyana, Egypt, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, Iraq...etc)
People often focus on the four successful white British colonies that are basically exceptions and forget that the average British ex-colony is as much as an utter shithole as the average French one

Overall, Spain has the best colonies

If you could go ahead and reread that, you'll notice I was saying that India was NOT sparsely populated. It had a native populace and culture, and that's why it's not a successful post-colony.

Abbos aren't homo sapiens, though. You could kill a couple million over night just by leaving petrol out.

Face it, the Brits did well because they played smart and went after slim pickings.

Not without trying.

They lost Algeria in the end because they could't replace the native population.

the amount of resources and efforts it took for britain to domineer and control the southern hemisphere nigh on cost it the north

i cant work out if you ppl are just retards from ignorance or shill retards on purpose short some well deserved forced anal sex

The French tried to make Algeria a settlement colony without removing the natives
They thought both could coexist, which was a mistake (especially when arabs heavily outnumbered the colonist)
Brits knew better and kicked the natives away from their settlements in North America (and the US eventually downright genocided them in the 2nd half of the 19th century)

They're not good at fightin wars. Lost territory slowly.

They simply didn't have any big emigration to form a diaspora to impose as governing elite or to settle foreign lands.

This was mostly due to their comparably low birth rates in the 19th century.

Also France stayed a pretty agrarian state until WWI. Peasants don't tend to emigrate a lot.

In fact France was more of an immigration nation since the 19th century, needing workforce from italy, and spain to keep up with the booming populations of England and Germany.


Just to make you an image of the low emigration. Look at the surnames of Americans. You'll see a lot of English, Scottish and German names. But only a relatively low number of French names

algerians != arabs

Maybe in ancient time
Arabs invaded and colonized North Africa long ago

there is still a ~30% who speak berber as their first language, probably much higher in the past

That's not the question at hand, though. The question was why some British colonies succeeded after independence and others failed. There's a correlation between the state of the native people's, and post-colonial success. There is no such correlation between amount of money spent on a colony and post-colonial success. Moreover, this correlation holds up when you look at other colonial powers, namely France and Russia.

Deal with it.

Go meme somewhere else, faglord
The wars France lost in North America had nothing to do wuth being
Resisting for a decade when outnumberec 4 to 1 is pretty impressive

Anyway, OP's question is why have the French 19th century colonies became shitholes while the four British white colonies have became successful
If he had been educated, he'd have compared them to the 19th century British colonies in Africa and Asia only to find out they're as shitty if not worse

...

If only the German African colonies survived past WWI. There could be hundreds of beautiful Swakopmund-style towns.

I don't really understand what's going on there.
Looks like Germans went there for science?
Brits went there, exploited the natives, shoved Christ down their throats and wrung the gold out of 'em
French just went and bedded and befriended the natives?
Belgians just went there and vacationed at the expense of the natives?

Colonialism was a hell of a drug.

mockery of colonial styles of these countries.

Germans had to put everything in order, what goes with the spirit of their nation.

British wanted to exploit as much as they could.

French did not do anything remarkable.

Belgians heavily exploited the Kongolese, and genocided them when they did not work enough (12-20 mln died).

>Looks like Germans went there for science?
Germans imposed Ordnung in the colonies
>Brits went there, exploited the natives, shoved Christ down their throats and wrung the gold out of 'em
yes
>French just went and bedded and befriended the natives?
French legitimised their colonial quest with a 'mission to civilize'
Their strategy was to assimilate the natives and turn the natives into French
Their policy to consider that nogs where French once they've adopted French culture seemed very liberal to people back them, thus they are portrayed as race-mixers
>Belgians just went there and vacationed at the expense of the natives?
Look up Belgian Congo. Funny stuff

>abundance of French loanwords
I'm familiar with some in English, but what are some examples in other languages? Just out of curiosity.

>no natives in the German panel
I see what they did there.

Most of military tems in German

>The name of the town is derived from the Nama word Tsoakhaub ("excrement opening")

Wow, they all owe the Germans for that one.

French was prominent in Europe for a long ass time before Napoleon. Even the Russians were learning french. Sometimes the Princes would speak better French than their own language. This was the case in the 16th century.

You are both wrong about the German caricature. The caricatures were puplished in a German newspaper and critisized the German foreign politic. The person in the background is actually the UK who managed to colonies many valuable places, while Germany only got worthless scraps. Notice how the German figure is noticably darker than the British figure in the background. Its an direct reference to chancellor Bülow who wanted "einen Platz an der Sonne" (a place under the sun) for Germany too.

And French became popular among English nobility around 1066, right?

>got btfo by slavshits who used scorched earth tactics, the weather to their advantage and had partisans in every tree
>only then the rest of europe could beat him
Really makes you think.

And yet another British faggot spouting bullshits on Veeky Forums...
The two dudes in the first panels are both German
The British is in the second panel, and you can notice his helmet has no spike (unlike the two dude above)
Now STFU inbred island monkey

post yfw France still own colonies today

>ireland

Pretty sure you're wrong.
If we take the north american colonies for example, you'll notice that the Thirteen Colonies of the English were densely populated and thoroughly involved in a mission of «civilisation», hence the genocides and terrible stuff towards the natives.

The New France colony was, for all purposes, a commercial colony that didn't go much further than trading posts and small settlements. Furs trading mostly. They were only busy with trapping, trading and making war with the Indians. Most inhabitants were male and were only temporarily settled.

That's why, when war raged between the english and french colonies, the Thirteen Colonies had no problem beating New France; they were outnumbered 50 - 65 000 to a million and a half.

Then, after the war, the english governers did everything they could to «civilize» the french by assimilating them into an english culture. They've been doing so for 250 years now and it's slowly working.

Look up Lord Durham's reports on the Canadiens. Also funny stuff.

Yeah but that's because of conquest. I was talking about the cultural influence of France outside the military. Of course both went together for a fair bit but France never conquered Russia or Prussia.

The caricatures are referring to19th century colonisation mostly focussing on africa, tho.

Don't think it has anything to do with Canada since the French and Indian wars were long passed when this caricature was done.

Not sure if you are trolling, or just blind from superiorityyy complex.

Both guys in the first panel are clearly German, judging from the Pickelhaube.

This caricatures just makes fun of stereotypical colonial policies of that time.

Not everything is a dick measurement contest

>Abbos aren't homo sapiens, though

They are though.

Yes, my bad. Then the caricature is wrong.

>British colonies founded in places that had actual people living these failed miserably in the long run. India is literally POO and kept afloat due to sheer market size,

That's because they never developed them at all (and developing them would be unwise). Colonies were great sheltered markets where you can sell your goods to to said colonies as the only nations that can. Once prices in continental Europe were too low profits started to drop you sell them to the colonies ot length you period of profits because for example only English companies can sell goods in English colonies AND local competition was squashed.

>They thought both could coexist, which was a mistake

How the hell can they when Indigenous folk were a heavily abused second class that had very little investment barring the absolute minimum.

what exactly is wrong in the caricature ? Except that it exagerates and oversimplifies the situation, it pretty much catches up how the different colonial systems at that time were perceived

>. There is no such correlation between amount of money spent on a colony and post-colonial success

There's a correlation in investment of the population, the colony policies and it's post colonial success if yo both to read up on it.

>They've been doing so for 250 years now and it's slowly working.

Assimilation failed a long time ago. Sure anglo culture is present but quebec is still french through and through

t. well behaved, respectful spic immigrant in quebec who learned french

What kind of scheiBeskin are you?
Arab?
Poo in Loo?
Haitian?

sudaca

Nah English is spreading in Quebec overtime gradually. Not as an official policy but more are learning and becoming proficient in English.

You're right more people are proficient in english these days but that doesnt mean english is going to replace french as the main language

>FRANCE:
>...

They practically invented neo-colonialism, all those countries in Africa are essentially governed from the French embassy.